Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Political Discussion
Reply to "If you agree with the Electoral College, you agree with Slavery"
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I see that Maine splits its electoral vote - not sure the formula, but Hillary won the popular vote about 48 to 45% and she got 3 of he 4 electoral votes, and Trump got 1. So it seems states can proportion their EC votes to reflect the popular vote?[/quote] Yes only Maine and Nebraska does this.[/quote] Is it a choice the individual states get to make? So could more do this if they wanted to?[/quote] Yes its the choice of the state and more can do it if they wanted to BUT that won't fix the issue that the EC votes themselves are not allocated fairly. For instance WY with 550K voters have 3 EC votes as does North Dakota with 750k voters. So the person winning ND will have 200K more votes BUT still get only 3 EC votes. Thats the crux of the problem. [/quote] PP, maybe you should move to Wyoming then you could feel good about there 'advantage'. LOL[/quote] OP - think about it.... even if you reduced these small states (WY, ND, SD, MT etc.) from 3 EC votes down to 1 EC vote to "correct" as you say for their "over representation" in the EC Donald Trump still would have won the EC and the presidency. [/quote] No you are wrong, if it goes all the way then every state including PA will be reduced. The other way to look at this is instead of reducing you increase the EC votes based on population then CA will have 110 EC votes. Remember math is proportional, so it won't change the outcome as long as the Winner has a majority vote win. Hillary's lead is over 1 Million votes and its a travesty that 1 Million voters are DISENFRANCHISED. [/quote] Why didn't you and HRC's other supporters not bring up the flaws of the EC process BEFORE she lost??????[/quote] It is not about this election alone. Its about the principle that the mejority vote winner wins ANY ELECTION ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD but for America.EC is antiquated and it is rooted in slavery. It disenfranchised over 1 Million voters,how is that fair? Infact trump himself said EC is disaster to democracy and even in the 60 minutes interview, to his credit, he didn't back off from what he said before by saying his opinion about EC hasn't changed just because he won via EC without majority vote. [/quote] Sorry to break it to you, but slavery is not the center of the universe...or the reason for the EC system -- something like that was needed to create a Union of states with very different population sizes (regardless of slavery).[/quote] The senate was designed to give a voice to the small states. Thats why every state regardless of their population have 2 senators. Its the job of the senate to represent the small states. But the presidency is also skewed towards the small states DISENFRANCHISING states like CA. Are you saying in our democracy we need to disenfranchise big states like CA, NY even when they contribute the most to the GDP, innovation, technology and revenue? Then why should they be in the union? Why not the small states live off their own revenue, why are big states paying for the welfare of small states? So CA gets the raw deal. They pay for the welfare of the small states, in return they get disenfranchised. CA should leave the union. [/quote] With CA having 55 electoral votes, they're hardly disenfranchised. Remember, we're the UNITED states of America. That's why we fought a war. [/quote] [b]Hillary won with over 1 Million votes majority but those 1 Million doesn't matter and TRUMP still won. So those 1 Million voters are disenfranchised. Are you on drugs? [/b] WY with about 1 Million population(rounded up generously since they have only about 600K) has 3 Electoral votes. CA with over 35 million population has only 55 EC votes when they should have 3 X 35 = 105 EC votes. So CA is seriously disenfranchised even when they contribute the most to the welfare of the small states. CA should just quit payingmoney to the federal unless they get equal representation. REMEMBER ONE PERSON ONE VOTE, but in America every person in WY has 2 EC votes for every person in CA, even in a very conservative calculation. [/quote] np Why do you persist in your ignorance. You have been told many times that using this election under the current system as a true barometer is a false equivalent. Take away the EC and see what happens then as to the vote. The EC suppresses, to what extent we don't know yet, the vote. In a state like Texas where Trump was a sure winner you had voters for Trump and Hillary that probably didn't vote at all. So, stop trying to make an argument against something, the EC, based on a vote from an election with the EC in it!!![/quote]
Options
Disable HTML in this message
Disable BB Code in this message
Disable smilies in this message
Review message
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
